SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
MUNEER FAIROOZ – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13604 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.T.P.SAJID, SRI.K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI, SMT.SHIFA LATHEEF, SHRI.MUHAMMED HAROON A.N., SMT.SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.HASHARURAHIMAN U., SHRI.MOHEMED FAVAS, SHRI.MUHAMMED BILAL K.
For the Respondents: SRI. TONY AUGUSTINE, GP, SRI B SATHEEZ CHANDRAN, SC

Unaccepted OTS offer letter from borrower does not bind bank to settlement; fresh application required for consideration.

Headnote:The petitioner claimed settlement of loan dues upon payment under an alleged One Time Settlement (OTS) offer letter (Ext.P2), supported by payment receipts (Exts.P3-P6). The court examined the documents and found Ext.P2 to be merely an offer from the petitioner, not accepted by the bank, with outstanding dues persisting post-adjustment. No specific statutes were referenced beyond banking OTS procedures. The key issue was whether the bank's non-acceptance of the petitioner's OTS offer letter bound it to settle for Rs.1,97,000/-. The court's ratio clarified that mere receipt of the offer copy does not constitute acceptance or assurance of settlement, as confirmed by document scrutiny and bank's submissions on outstanding amounts. Writ petition disposed directing petitioner to apply for fresh OTS within one week, bank to consider within one month, recovery stayed till disposal.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim of ots settlement via payment (Para 1 , 4)
2. bank's rejection of offer; outstanding dues persist (Para 2 , 3 , 5)
3. direct fresh ots application; stay recovery (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on the contention that in spite of payment of the OTS amount as per Ext.P2, the Bank is demanding further amounts from the Petitioner.

2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank points out that Ext.P2 is only an offer letter from the Petitioner for Rs.1,97,000/- , and the Bank has not accepted the said offer.

3. On going through Ext.P2, it is seen that the Bank has merely accepted a copy of the same from the Petitioner. There is no assurance from the side of the Bank that the loan would be settled for Rs.1,97,000/-.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.1,97,000/- as revealed from Exts.P3, P4, P5, & P6.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that as of 31.08.2025, the amount outstanding after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,97,000/- is 1,40,664.49 and the Bank is ready to offer OTS even now to the Petitioner.

6. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Petitioner to approach the Bank with necessary Application for OTS within a period of one week and directing the Bank to consider the Application for OTS within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the Application.

7. Since the Petitioner has already paid Rs.1,97,000/-, further proceedings for recovery will be kept in abeyance till the date of disposal of the Application for OTS. In case the Petitioner does not submit the Application for OTS within one week, the Bank is free to proceed with the recovery proceedings.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top